Update Page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral transparency on its own. It discloses that updating replaces the page body and instructs the caller to pass full content, which is a critical side effect. It could additionally clarify behavior when only 'name' is passed, but the main mutation risk is addressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important caveat about body replacement, making every sentence earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the essential preconditions and side effects. It would be slightly stronger if it clarified that the body is only replaced when a body parameter is supplied, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the rule that at least one update field is required and warns about full-body replacement, but does not substantially enrich individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Update a page's title and/or body' and adds a business rule ('At least one field is required'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_page, delete_page, archive_page, and restore_page by restricting scope to modifying existing page content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is clear: this is the update counterpart to create_page and applies when an existing page's title or content must change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the update-specific language and body-replacement note provide enough context for an agent to select it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.